Headline is that Solar produced more power in May than Coal in the U.S. Yet most of the comments here are about how evil Trump is and how he's destroying the environment or what not. Which is it? Is Solar increasing electrical production share under this administration, or not? Conflating whether or not people's political preferences align has nothing to do with the other.

Considering the relatively limited amount of time mRNA vaccines have been deployed en masse, your cats are probably about as qualified as anybody to opine on their efficacy.

The risk mitigation strategy here is far more complicated than that. For a DC to completely cut grid power and switch to onsite generation would require onsite generation to have the ability to run for extended durations in case of grid collapse, including fuel for however many days/weeks that might be. If a DC is going to have that much generation onsite they would be more likely to use onsite power as the primary, grid as secondary which is also potentially problematic for the grid. The more rational risk mitigation would be to have enough onsite generation to perform load balancing and or systems shutdown in case of a grid outage. The effect would be, onsite would support the input power for a short period of time. It would not prevent a grid collapse, but it would not cause one either.

Many DC's do, for sure, employ line conditioning at grid scale using a number of methods (battery, flywheel, etc.) Those contribute as mitigation to the catastrophic scenario, but are not designed as more than short-term interventions.

This is an interesting analysis, and I don't necessarily disagree with the points made. I would only point out that the Immunity ruling was in July, 2024 while Biden was President, and he absolutely utilized #2 and #3 and arguably #1. Suggesting that this is a Trump-only problem is disingenuous.

Only when using floating point numbers.

That's not even remotely accurate. The whole concept of "jailbreaking" an AI effectively uses social engineering tactics. I don't know any of their official stances, but I would expect most AI companies have flagged social-engineering style attacks as one of their greatest threats in their models. I would hope anyway.

As much as I would like the entire world to use metric, it's relevant to acknowledge that the metric system was only first adopted (by the French) in 1795. That was long after most countries including the U.S. had been surveying, mapping and defining their geography. All of that work would have to be redone to convert to metric, and then at a time before computers, by hand. That's to say nothing of people of the time agreeing with the French on much of anything (not that it's more likely now.)

So, while metric may make more sense to many including myself, there are good reasons it has not been universally adopted. So get outta here with that.

https://usma.org/origin-of-the...

The problem with all these pricing models is that the concept of a "token" and what it consists of is nebulous at best. I know what they mean by it, but there's not hard calculation to determine how many "tokens" a specific prompt or response will consume. You can guess, but only so accurately. That concept needs to be better defined before anyone can estimate their ongoing costs.

Either it's so difficult to turn refined nuclear material in to a weapon that it's not worth being concerned about, or it's a huge risk to allow any of said material into the wrong hands because they'll easily turn it into a weapon.

You don't get to have it both ways. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

That is certainly one purpose for them. The stated use-case is to only employ them in case of emergency (general example is a kidnapping.) That's a valid use I suppose. The problem is, there's no feasible safeguard to ensure they are only every used for such noble purposes. And, especially with the rise of AI/ML/visual recognition, they could easily be used for general surveillance of the population before it became public knowledge and or controlled (whether by law enforcement or even outside actors.) So then we have a situation where we need watchers to watch the watchers, and watchers to watch them, and where does it end?

There certainly good be legitimate uses for the camera systems, but history has shown us that such a wide-reaching system will inevitably be abused, so we're probably better off not starting down that path and stopping it if we're already on the way.

But I do know the datacenters are coming, along with their power requirements. Nothing is likely to stop that. So we'd better make some decisions as a society. Either we let these Datacenters generate most of their own power, which the administration claims to be supporting, or residential utility rates will go up substantially. We don't live in a "have it both ways" world.

120 days. That's less than 1/3 of a year for those who are not good at math. None of that time was spent in the Legislative branch, so Musk spent exactly 0 years in any position to make law.

Wish I had mod points so I could give this +1 Informative, but I'll take it one step further. If you wanted to do business with the previous administration you had to have "inclusive" as part of your guiding principals to even qualify. It wasn't even about pleasing the administration, it was a requirement.

Of course it is.

Are you suggesting that Greed was invented in the 1980's?

Obviously not. Greed is at least as old as written history, and probably older than the human race (chimps are greedy too.) Blaming "greed" is a strawman argument because it is neither a novel nor solve-able problem. It is human nature, and thus we have no choice but to work with greed as part of the equation. Greed cannot be truly eliminated from our society.

I see. And who should said tax revenues go to? Unless you can answer that, and prove that's actually what happens with said revenues, taxation is not a deterrent. Instead it's just a grift.